Owned by Pascal's Wager.

I once in a debate with my catholic friend. He used pascal wager argument and bid on jesus but then i told him its useless, because:

- There are many gods across all religions, not just one god, christian god.

- We cannot worship all gods because there at least 2 gods which says "Worship just me or burn" (christian & islam)

But then he told me all other gods is less likely to be true than christian's god because:

- On muslim, those who are in heaven will enjoy unlimited sex with 72 virgins with erection that lasts indefinitely. "That just so wrong their god must be a joke", he says.

- On buddhism, the buddha can see the future and the past while meditating.

There is no human can see the future nor past. If there is one, then that must be a work of satan, because the same thing happened when jesus tempted by satan. That time jesus gone blank-minded, a similar state to meditation, so he is implying that the buddha can see future and past because he is under the "touch" of satan.

- On Hinduism, they worship many gods, even animals. "Its ridiculous" he says.

- Therefore, even though there are little or no evidence, we should "Pascal's Wager" on christian god, jesus because other god is false.

Is what he says correct? Did i just get owned by Pascal's Wager? How to debunk this argument?

1) Just make him sit down and watch some Youtube George Carlin anti-religion rants, and if he thinks Christianity isn't ridiculous (trinity? WTF does that mean?...and let's not even get into Jesus casting demons into pigs and driving them over a cliff!).

2) As ridiculous as other religions may appear, if the nonsensical beliefs of Christianity have to be taken seriously, so do Islam, Zoroastrianism and the rest. How does one choose which religion's wager to accept?

3) I say, "There's an swordsman outside the door who will come in on my order and hack you to pieces you if you don't sign over all your money to me. So, you can doubt there's a man out there and take your chances or you can sign over your money and be safe." Are you ready to give me the money?

No, because now he is opinion-ating everything to suit his purpose. He is being irrational and apologetic. You can just as easily throw the Bible in there like he did with Buddhism and Islam and use it against him. Just open the Bible to a random page, stick your finger on a random spot, and 9 out 10 says you found golden bullshit.

It's ok, but how can one not believe in no God?.. semantically speaking: "I don't believe in no god" is a nonsense statement. So instead of "There is" and "There is no", it might be wiser to insert "The God Concept?" in the table. But for me, the concept of God does not deserve a "There is" or a "There is not" as it is designed to be forever beyond our comprehension. It is not entitled to an inference.